Home
| Report | Question ID | Question | Discussion | Answer | Cancer Site Category | Data Item Category | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
20140064 | Reportability--Testis: Is a mature teratoma of the testis reportable? See discussion. |
Mature teratoma is listed as a benign neoplasm (9080/0) in the ICD-O-3. SINQ 20120085 references a NAACCR Webinar that indicated pure mature teratomas of the testis in adults are reportable. We are not aware of any further documentation of this change in reportability. When did mature teratomas of the testis for adults become reportable? What is the defined age range for "adult"? The original SINQ question above lists the 2012 SEER Manual as a Reference, however, no clarification or mention of this change in reportability was found in that manual. |
For testis, mature teratoma in an adult (post-puberty) is reportable because it is malignant (9080/3); however, mature teratoma in a child is benign (9080/0). The 2011 NAACCR webinar introduced this concept and it was documented in the 2012 SINQ question. You may use 2011 or 2012 as the date of this change. The next edition of the SEER manual will include reportability examples. |
N/A | N/A | 2014 |
|
|
20110053 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: How many primaries are accessioned for a patient with a several month history of refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB), that may or may not have been treated, who now presents with a bone marrow biopsy that is compatible with acute myeloid leukemia? | Updated May 2026
Per Rule M10, abstract multiple primaries when a neoplasm is originally diagnosed as a chronic neoplasm AND there is a second diagnosis of an acute neoplasm after the initial clinical workup for the chronic neoplasm is completed. Two primaries should be accessioned for this case: refractory anemia with excess blasts (RAEB) [9983/3] (a chronic neoplasm), and acute myeloid leukemia [9861/3] (an acute neoplasm).
|
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2011 | |
|
|
20071074 | MP/H Rules/Multiple Primaries--Lung: How many primaries should be reported when an "adenocarcinoma" is discovered in one of several new nodules at the scar in a lung and it is less than a year after a wedge resection for a diagnosis of "bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma" in the same lung? See Discussion. | In March 2006 patient diagnosed with bronchioalveolar adenocarcinoma [8250/3] and had wedge resection. In November 2006 a CT chest shows nodules at the scar suspicious for recurrence. In January, 2007, there was a biopsy of one of the nodules showing adenocarcinoma [8140/3]. Is this part of the original disease process diagnosed in March 2006 or should it be abstracted as a new primary based on 2007 MP/H rules (histology is different at the first 3 digits)? |
For cases diagnosed 2007 or later:
Try to obtain more information/clarification on the 2007 diagnosis -- for example, is it metastasis? Based only on the information provided for this case, the 2007 diagnosis is a separate primary. Use the 2007 MP/H rules to assess the 2007 diagnosis. Begin with rule M3 in the multiple tumors section. Stop at rule M11, multiple primaries. |
Lung | N/A | 2007 |
|
|
20100077 | Multiple primaries--Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms: Would it be correct to apply rule M5 for a recurrence and abstract a single primary when a patient has a history of Hodgkin disease diagnosed in 2005 followed by a diagnosis of "recurrent Hodgkin and EBV+ Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma" in 2010? See Discussion. | Does Rule M5 only apply if both diseases are present at the original diagnosis, or does it also take into account a recurrence of an old disease? The answer to this question makes a difference between stopping at rule M5 and abstracting as one disease, or going on to rule M15 to query the Hematopoietic Database to determine whether the patient has two separate primaries.
Example: Patient had Stage II Hodgkin disease in 2005 (all lymph nodes above diaphragm, supraclavicular LN biopsied at diagnosis), treated and patient achieved complete remission. In 2010, the patient is admitted for suspected recurrence. A supraclavicular lymph node biopsy showed, "Recurrent Hodgkin" AND "EBV+ Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma," both in the same lymph node. Applying rule M5, this is a single primary and states not to query the DB. However, this doesn't seem correct as it does not account for the new DLBCL. |
For cases diagnosed 2010 and forward, access the Hematopoietic Database at http://seer.cancer.gov/seertools/hemelymph.
You must first determine the histology codes for each occurrence of lymphoma. The 2005 diagnosis was stated to be Hodgkin disease (NOS) [9650/3]. The 2010 diagnosis was Hodgkin and EBV + diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (two histologies). Per Rule M5 the 2010 diagnosis is a single primary because the Hodgkin and the non-Hodgkin (DLBCL) were simultaneously present in the same lymph node. Per Rule PH14, a Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin simultaneously present in the same location should be coded to 9596/3 [B-cell lymphoma, unclassifiable].
Ultimately, there is a diagnosis of 9596/3 in 2010 that followed a diagnosis of 9650/3 in 2005. Per Rule M15, use the Multiple Primary Calculator to determine the number of primaries, which indicates the 9596/3 is a new primary.
SEER*Educate provides training on how to use the Heme Manual and DB. If you are unsure how to arrive at the answer in this SINQ question, refer to SEER*Educate to practice coding hematopoietic and lymphoid neoplasms. Review the step-by-step instructions provided for each case scenario to learn how to use the application and manual to arrive at the answer provided. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. https://educate.fhcrc.org/LandingPage.aspx. |
Heme & Lymphoid Neoplasms | N/A | 2010 |
|
|
20170026 | Multiple Primaries/Histology Rules/Multiple primaries--Kidney, renal pelvis: Are tumors diagnosed more than three years apart multiple primaries according to Rule M7 in a case with metastasis? See Discussion. |
5/27/02 Transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT)--papillary transitional cell carcinoma, +lamina propria, no muscle invasion. All urine cytologies in 2011 and 2012 (only follow up received) show no malignancy. 3/11/15 Lung fine needle aspirate--poorly differentiated carcinoma consistent with urothelial carcinoma. 4/30/15 Renal pelvis biopsy--low grade papillary urothelial carcinoma, no lamina propria invasion, no muscularis propria invasion. |
Rule M7 applies. Abstract the bladder diagnosis and the renal pelvis diagnosis as separate primaries. The lung diagnosis is metastatic. The MP/H rules do not apply to metastatic tumors. |
Kidney, renal pelvis | N/A | 2017 |
|
|
20061124 | Reportability: Is a tumor reported as "neoplasm" or "neoplasia" per the pathology report, which is subsequently clinically referred to as "carcinoma" reportable? See Discussion. |
Example 1: Lung-Wedge resection and subsequent left lower lobe lobectomy showed papillary epithelial neoplasia. Tumor board and subsequent reports state "nonsmall cell carcinoma of lung." Example 2: Kidney-Partial nephrectomy showed epithelial neoplasm, clear cells with low grade cytology. Subsequent urology clinic notes state that path revealed clear cell renal carcinoma. 2004 SEER manual states that "cases clinically diagnosed are reportable. If the physician treats a patient for cancer in spite of the negative biopsy, accession the case." Do we also accession the case if primary site has been resected? Would diagnostic confirmation be coded 8 (clinical diagnosis only)? |
Accession the case and code Diagnostic Confirmation as 8 [clinical diagnosis only]. Accession a case with negative pathology when the clinician is aware of the negative pathology and continues to refer to the case as malignant. |
N/A | N/A | 2006 |
|
|
20000272 | Grade, Differentiation: Are anaplastic tumors always coded to grade 4, even for anaplastic brain primaries? | Yes. Always code the Grade, Differentiation field to for 4 [Grade IV] for "anaplastic" tumors. Anaplastic is synonymous with undifferentiated. Refer to the example in the SEER Program Code Manual, 3rd Ed. | N/A | N/A | 2000 | |
|
|
20150016 | Reportability--Stomach: Is a well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor of the stomach reportable? |
Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumor (NET) of the stomach is reportable. The WHO classification of digestive system tumors uses the term NET G1 (grade 1) as a synonym for carcinoid and well-differentiated NET, 8240/3. |
Stomach | N/A | 2015 | |
|
|
20130198 | MP/H Rules/Multiple primaries--Rectosigmoid: How many primaries are accessioned for a synchronous diagnosis of neuroendocrine carcinoma and a separate adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma when both arise in the rectosigmoid junction? See Discussion. | Total colectomy showed neuroendocrine carcinoma of the rectosigmoid junction, as well as a separate adenocarcinoma arising in a villous adenoma of the rectosigmoid junction. Is this a single primary per Rule M13 (a frank adenocarcinoma and an adenocarcinoma in a polyp) or Rule M16 (adenocarcinoma and a more specific adenocarcinoma)? Or are these two primaries? | Accession two primaries per Rule M17, neuroendocrine carcinoma [8246/3] of the rectosigmoid junction [C199], and adenocarcinoma in a villous adenoma [8261/3] of the rectosigmoid junction [C199]. There are two tumors with ICD-O-3 histology codes that differ at the third number.
Rule M13 does not apply to neuroendocrine carcinoma. Rule M16 does not apply to this case because there are two specific histologies. |
N/A | N/A | 2013 |
|
|
20081107 | Multiplicity Counter/Ambiguous terminology: How should these fields be coded for cases with an unknown date of diagnosis? | If the date of diagnosis is unknown, it is likely that you have little information for this case. Both multiplicity counter and ambiguous terminology fields would probably be coded as unknown. However, if information on the number of tumors and the diagnostic confirmation are available, code these fields as specified in the manual. | N/A | N/A | 2008 |
An official website of the United States government
